User talk:Philcha/Archive Archives/3

Emanuel Lasker
Hi. Judging from the questions you ask on the talk page, you seem to be not very familiar with the subject and rely too heavily on Google. I recommend that you get the book "Emanuel Lasker, the life of a chess master" by Jacques Hannak. Although it is a little bit outdated and contains are some minor inaccuracies, it is still a classic. It should be not too difficult to find in libraries or used book shops. Sincerely, Stefan64 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note
This. WLU (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * On reflection and review of my own conduct on the talk page, I have no right in complaining about being cryptic. Please, I am ignorant of the page topic and am editing as best I can.  I would welcome collaboration with a knowledgeable contributor.  I left the page alone for two weeks to give you an opportunity to expand or modify the page, and sincerely did my best to review your changes and integrate them into the version that I pasted in today.  It's in the draft history, you could, if you had a lot of time, review it diff-by-diff with the changes you made on the 19th/21st and they should map out roughly in order.  I really, really want a good article out of this, one that wastes neither of our time or effort and produces a thorough, readable, interesting and informative page that is in keeping with the manual of style and the game itself.  I have reviewed your suggestions as thoroughly as I can and done my best to change the page because I can see you are knowledgeable about the game and gaming in general.  I do ask that you try retaining my changes, say for the week suggested by Scheinwerfermann, and instead I offer this page.  It is a copy of the most recent version  with the changes made per your suggestion.  To give us a bit of distance from the actual page and for free play with the text and mark-up, could we agree to leave the extant version alone and edit that instead?  Alternatively, if you really, really feel my version is inadequate, how about this - revert to the previous version, but please edit, or suggest edits on the draft page, until we can come up with a version that is acceptable to both of us.
 * I've got to eat crow on this one because as I reviewed my own conduct, I realized it was far from exemplary. I edit quickly and tend to be choppy on my talk page comments, this does not help with my reception by other editors.  It's the reason for my first two bullets in this section of my user page.  I am sorry that I was intemperate and rude in my first interactions with you, and sorry that I followed it up with further rudeness on the page.  I am not actually that bad to work with generally - I'm a good copy editor, researcher and have a decent knowledge of the policies.  Plus, I've a huge desire for wikipedia to succeed, and it can only do so if knowledgeable editors contribute and collaborate.  In this topic, you are my superior.  I've not played MoO (not strictly true, I tried it out for five minutes, two turns, after several months of MoO II, but obviously I'm not a go-to guy on the topic).  I've appreciated your comments because they have helped me improve the page.  Were you to directly edit, it would greatly speed up the process.  I'm happy to stay hands-off and work on the talk page, or only edit for spelling/grammar/wording, or drop suggested revisions on a talk page.
 * My ideal outcome is a page that is acceptable to experienced players of the game and in keeping with the MOS. I can not do this alone, and I'd probably save you time in endless references to the style guides - together we will produce a better page faster than either one of us apart and collaboration works very well to spur pages to a higher quality version.  I am sincerely sorry that I was as rude as I was and continued it in subsequent interactions.  I would really appreciate the opportunity to work with you instead of against you.  And to top it off, this is about the only game page that you'd ever see me on - once we reach a consensus version you'd probably never see me again.
 * Thanks, and one last apology. I'm sorry I'm an ass. WLU (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like details, on a subject where I have little knowledge, the more details the better.
 * You should really read through WP:V - it's not my policy (though I do really like it), it's the only practical way to sort through issues where the topic is ill-documented and discussed, emerging, or contested. I've edited pages about people where one editor knew the subject of the article, and would justify edits with "It is how X would want it" or "X did this, I know because I was there".  WP:AGF can allow reasonable amounts of this if it's not contested.  In this case, the changes were hotly contested and there was counter-evidence of equally dubious merit (web fora, blogs, etc).  Another page an editor was a researcher and had experience analyzing and writing peer-reviewed journals.  He wanted to insert a block of text that compared the article's topic (a drug) with other drugs to treat the same condition, claiming expertise (but no sources).  That broke WP:OR AND WP:V, and after the Essjay controversy, just doesn't work.
 * I'll try to integrate what changes I can based on your list, and when I don't feel comfortable doing so, I'll do my best to state why. Note that again I have no problem with you editing the page directly - I don't think it's necessarily healthy for me to be the one making all the edits (it gives the appearance of ownership and the impression that I am the authority on what changes and what does not - I'm not, I shouldn't be, and I have no claim to such authority).  I don't want to be the only one making changes either, it's time consuming and slower than you doing so yourself as well as running a risk of me getting it wrong.  If I have an issue with any edits or wording, I'll either re-edit if it's minor or comment on the talk page so we can seek a compromise or better wording.  I've done this on orthomolecular psychiatry, satanic ritual abuse and other pages and it seemed to work OK.  Most of my wording edits seem to be acceptable.  WLU (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I hadn't noticed you were editing and ended up changing a section title. I'm still drafting a reply.  WLU (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tag, you're it. I'll leave it for the rest of the day, please edit mercilessly.  WLU (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Have you considered archiving your talk page? It's pretty lengthy and users on slow connections will run into significant loading delays (also harder to find stuff that's new). I've been using User:Miszabot for a while now, it seems to work without bugging. If you paste at the top of your talk page, it will invisibly archive all text that is a week old into a sub-page. It may have to be at the very top, if it's in a section it may archive itself :) If you do so, I would also recommend putting in or something similar so they can be accessed without editing the addressbar or having to search for it.  Just a thought, you could also just delete all the old stuff.

Did I mention I'm a busybody micromanager in addition to my many other flaws? WLU (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also post long replies. Did you know the recommendation on one of the talk page guidelines pages is 100 words?  What the hell can I say in 100 words?  Speaking of replies, IE just crapped out on me and erased the reply I was drafting on T:MOO, the fuck.  I hate explorer, it's started bugging out every time POPUPS engages.
 * You can archive manually, basically open two windows - one editing your current talk page, one on your archive page. Cut everything you consider 'closed' from your current page and paste it into your new archive page.  Miszabot does it for you, on a regular basis, and to date I've had no problems with it once it actually gets running.  From what I know, you really just have to paste the Misza code at the top of your talk page and wait a day or so, and it'll shuttle everything to the new talk page.  You can see it at the very top of my talk page if you edit it, the actual template is invisible.  Using Misza, you may need to manually set up the archive page at first (I could do it for you if you'd like) but once it's running it works fine.
 * The text in the template determines when it's archived (7d = 7 days old by time/date stamp), how big your archive can get before starting a new one (250K = 250 kilobytes of text), where it goes (archive = blah blah blah = the sub-page to put stuff in), counter is which archive to put it in, and I think it automatically updates but 250 K is a lot and I've yet to see it run into my 4th archive. WLU (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I use FF on one of my computers, this one isn't mine and I'm not allowed (wah!) to install FF. So I'm stuck with this piece of shit by microsoft.  Asses.
 * How 'bout I try to set up your archive and you see if it works? I think it kicks in on a daily basis, you might not see a change until tomorrow, at which point a large portion of your talk page might disappear.
 * You are not wrong about the crapiness of documentation on wiki. I've cursed Misza many a time, but it seems to work now.  We'll see what happens when my archive reaches 250k though.  WLU (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Look for Misza to kick in some time tomorrow.  Misza seems to kick in around 8:30am my time, and goes in alphabetical order, so expect to see something around 10:30am tomorrow (again, my time).  I'll try to keep my eyes open for any hiccups, but if it breaks let me know and I'll see if I can fix it.  Though I make no guarantees as Misza is pretty fickle.  WLU (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)